Where is the line on political speech?

[etheras]

I realize this forum is supposed to be devoid of politics so that we can talk about games *exclusively*.

Where is the line, though, on talking about politics in gaming? Are we allowed to complain here if a game company is shoving propaganda down our throats? The lifetime achievement award being stripped from the creator of Atari because of a false "Me Too" claim? Or promoting good titles, and mentioning whether the game is without SJW tropes?

I'm not asking if we should be like TRUMP 2020 MAGA etc. But is politics within gaming off-limits? Or what about politics -around- gaming? (Sony's censorship crusade, the lifetime achievement award being removed, etc)

Thanks!

[LiamC]

Softcoregamer; We need to take the high ground here. Critiquing a review or story is one thing. Making fun of, or attacking someone for their views is another. Anything here can be taking out of context and used against us. Do you really want your post making fun of someone to be that ammunition?

[softcoregamer]

so generally will making fun of 'games journalists' be ok?

[Aidy]

https://youtu.be/G3IArgxPzA0?t=648

Jeremy says: "If you want to go to a place that we're just gonna talk about the game itself, and gaming related topics, and industry related things, not *grrr* SJWs! Then you're gonna have Exclusively Games."

I believe he answered my question.

He did - "not *grrr* SJWs!"

Or a developer got fired from his job because SJWs dug up some old Tweets of his.

[Grimm Bastard]

Neither of those things are about games though.

[LEFT][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Arial][SIZE=12px]
The reality, though, is that such threads go massively off-topic in an instant and simply become slagging matches. It seem clear to you that something needs criticised, but to someone else that same thing should be defended and they'll jump on to do so.

https://youtu.be/G3IArgxPzA0?t=648

Jeremy says: "If you want to go to a place that we're just gonna talk about the game itself, and gaming related topics, and industry related things, not *grrr* SJWs! Then you're gonna have Exclusively Games."

I believe he answered my question.

[Tom]

Good notice

[Aidy]

I don't think it would be much of an issue, nor a deviation from the purpose of this forum to talk about things that have happened or will happen because of political reasons that are beyond our control, i.e. EA Games got 'woke' and attacked their core customers. Or a developer got fired from his job because SJWs dug up some old Tweets of his.

Neither of those things are about games though.

I never found the discussion or criticism of politically charged issues to actually be political themselves. Just talking about something is for the most part, just talking about something.

The reality, though, is that such threads go massively off-topic in an instant and simply become slagging matches. It seem clear to you that something needs criticised, but to someone else that same thing should be defended and they'll jump on to do so.

[monnef]

...

I'm willing to bet 1000 dollars that if you could make a giant survey and ask every gamer out there: just on specific things like:

Are you frustrated that most AAA seems to be released in a horrible state?

Should Video Games Journalists focus on actual factual reporting on video games instead of pushing their own political opinions in video games reviews?

then more than 50% of all gamers out there would say yes to both, which was the core principal of GamerGate, yet most haven't heard of it or think it was just a bunch of hateful trolls harassing woman...

I am pretty sure it would be way more than 50%. Those most ardent far left types are only 8% (at least according to the most recent study few months ago) and I wonder even how much / if at all are they actually buying and playing games. I don't believe majority of left/left-leaning gamers are satisfied with current state of game reviews from main stream game journalists. I actually am slightly left leaning, but also a liberal in the original sense and I fully agree with the tenets of GamerGate (which AFAIK never included harassment and other things GGs were being constantly accused of).

-

I have mentioned it on Twatter (response to what to do about reviewing politically charged games like Wolfestein; Jeremy responding case-by-case basis and may choose not to do a review):

I honestly don't see anything wrong with BRIEFLY mentioning it in a review and/or final cons/pros (along with how aggressive/prevalent it is). Of course it shouldn't matter if it is left/right/(classic definition)liberal/authoritarian/other, IMO the site should try to be neutral.

But as people pointed out here, it may be prudent to avoid (or at least try) charged political terms like SJW, feminazis, whiteknighting, racial/sexual diversity and similar.

[Layarion]

"external criticism" that'll always happen regardless of if this site is deserving of it or not. as long as news and journalist are aloud to post whatever regardless of truth or accuracy.

[Zalachai]

Yeah, I'm not sure if we have mods yet. I'm pretty close to emailing the big cheese and asking him to assign so mods or something. So far chaos hasn't broken out, cause we are all pretty good people.

[Chris_Ceee]

I am really not interested in politics, so I am happy this site exists and I hope people can refrain from political nonsense discussions, without the need for heavy-handed moderation.
IMHO, the only two exceptions to this should be:

1. Game reviews must point out if a game pushes a social/political agenda (but not discuss if this agenda is good or bad)
2. Game reviews should include information about censorship (which versions of the game are censored, where can we get a uncensored game, etc. -- but again, no discussion about the ethics/morals of this censorship)

[Ronnin426850]

This needs to be specific and not decided on case by case basis, if we are to avoid drama. I believe I have a good rule of thumb, a mod please chime in if this is acceptable, and maybe can be added to some compilation of guidelines, so people very clearly know where the line is.

Essentially, does your political post/comment contain or relate to anything in real life? Even as a point of comparison? If so, it's not ok.
That gets rid of toxic political discussions, while also allowing for full freedom of games discussion. Some examples:

"There is only one valid resolution to the Krogan dilemma, and it lies in understanding the balance between risk and reward" - OK
"There is only one valid resolution to the Krogan dilemma, because if you choose anything else, that means YOU are a racist" - NOT OK

"What are the implications of the way humans in The Witcher treat trolls, to the long-term development of their whole race?" - OK
"Trolls in Witcher are treated the same as blacks during the slavery, and as we can see, that leads to severe social issues" - NOT OK

"Did the Humans in MassEffect overstep a line when assuming control of the galaxy thanks to the leverage gained by just one person, and by accident?" - OK
"The Humans are basically the straight white cis man version of the MassEffect universe, and they employ the same tactics to oppress others" - NOT OK

"I love that Battlefield 5 contains more diverse characters, it makes it more interesting for me to see them in action" - OK
"Battlefield 5 empowers women and minorities by shining the spotlight on them, and away from whatever the Patriarchy wants" - NOT OK

I think that makes for a pretty easy to understand, follow, and employ rule for both posters to evaluate their post, and for mods to make easy decisions on what must be edited. What do you guys think?

[LiamC]

For what it's worth, I have to agree with Damian Cunliffe, and Carbon. People with an agenda will be watching us looking for opportunities to discredit this idea. There will be instigators here. All of us will end up being judged by the actions of others on these forums by the current games media journalists. This will be a learning process for all involved, I would advise that as we discuss our favorite topics we stay within the terms of service as much as possible and treat each other civilly. That means IF someone steps on your ideologically toes you shouldn't go straight to the mattresses, just let them know that this is not what Exclusively Games is about

[Carbon]

I think Tom is on the right track... the real issue with 'contemporary' politics being inserted into a game is that it tends to break immersion or result in unnatural dialog between characters. Discussing possible logical disconnects or jarring dialog would definitely be a valid point of discussion. Although, sometimes these things can be used as valid character traits for good or bad and should be looked at in context of the entire story arc of a game, the simple presence of a point of view in a game is a narrative tool.

Devolving into personal attacks or absolutes is where things go off the rails. Name calling never proves anything. Straw-man attacks are pointless. If something can't be discussed rationally, then it's usually best to just back away.

One cannot live on memes alone.

[Spect3r]

Tom
you do @ and username ie: Spect3r